- nazism has esoteric and exoteric doctrines. for the public, it's biology, racism and nationalism; in reality it is supra-national and spiritual - following Nietzsche, its prophet, in creating the Superman

- ch4: what nietzsche and hitler see as wrong with democracy, christianity, liberalism, communism. "soul equality before god" (xtianity) leads thru french revolution to secularized libertarian-socialist scale. the two differ only in degree. mass numbers and bogus rights of false equals produce men without chests. N & H want great men and aristocratic elites. no rights or consideration for the inferior, for that is nature's principle. they are teleo-naturalist (nature has a purpose, thru competition to produce superior forms, in the case of humans, the Superman or Overman).

Only listened to intro, chapters 1 and 2 but this is fascinating stuff. I was worried it was going to be overly pretentious but I don't find it particularly pretentious at all. It's pretty straightforward.

Abir Taha is working in Lebanon as a diplomat these days, so I guess that's where she originally comes from.

Just finished it: excellent. There can now be NO doubt the National Socialists were were Nietzscheans from the tops of their black helmets to the hobnails of their jackboots, and that Kaufman & Bloom are just more lying, history-distorting kikes.

I'm considering diving into some E. Michael Jones next; I've been putting that off despite the high praise & recommendation of Alex because I don't know if I'll be able to put up with him laughably asserting that not just Christianity but only the cafflick variety is The Answer to the Eternal jew.

__________________"First: Do No Good." - The Hymiecratic Oath

"The man who does not exercise the first law of nature—that of self preservation — is not worthy of living and breathing the breath of life." - John Wesley Hardin

Just finished it: excellent. There can now be NO doubt the National Socialists were were Nietzscheans from the tops of their black helmets to the hobnails of their jackboots, and that Kaufman & Bloom are just more lying, history-distorting kikes.

I'm considering diving into some E. Michael Jones next; I've been putting that off despite the high praise & recommendation of Alex because I don't know if I'll be able to put up with him laughably asserting that not just Christianity but only the cafflick variety is The Answer to the Eternal jew.

Jones really doesn't argue. He explains the catholic position and differentiates it from the Nazi position. Jones is actually fairly leftist. Nazism = biological essentialism. If catholics can convert one in a million jews, that proves they could convert the rest, and their position is right, and blood-biology is wrong. I find Jones's approach odd. He does not anticipate and answer obvious counter arguments or objections, he simply asserts. I don't know if that is his way or the catholic way generally. He's essentially betting that people will accept his conclusion following from his data (history), and as I say, I don't think they will. No matter his intent, he and his evidence prove the racial case: jews can't change. And one in a thousand conversions proves nothing except outliers exist. Which no racialist denies. Essentially, Jones can only argue by misconstruing racialism, creating a strawman. Race is rough but real, it's not the only thing going, it's just a lot more important than catholicism or goy-leftism acknowledges. I say again: Jones's evidence does not lead to Jones's conclusions. And I believe most readers will see it that way.

Jones really doesn't argue. He explains the catholic position and differentiates it from the Nazi position. Jones is actually fairly leftist. Nazism = biological essentialism. If catholics can convert one in a million jews, that proves they could convert the rest, and their position is right, and blood-biology is wrong. I find Jones's approach odd. He does not anticipate and answer obvious counter arguments or objections, he simply asserts. I don't know if that is his way or the catholic way generally. He's essentially betting that people will accept his conclusion following from his data (history), and as I say, I don't think they will. No matter his intent, he and his evidence prove the racial case: jews can't change. And one in a thousand conversions proves nothing except outliers exist. Which no racialist denies. Essentially, Jones can only argue by misconstruing racialism, creating a strawman. Race is rough but real, it's not the only thing going, it's just a lot more important than catholicism or goy-leftism acknowledges. I say again: Jones's evidence does not lead to Jones's conclusions. And I believe most readers will see it that way.

Does he present a lot of new historical facts about the jew that we don't already know? Or at least put them forth in a particularly damning fashion? Why do you think he's written the greatest book about the kikes ever (and which one is that, since he's written a couple)?

__________________"First: Do No Good." - The Hymiecratic Oath

"The man who does not exercise the first law of nature—that of self preservation — is not worthy of living and breathing the breath of life." - John Wesley Hardin

Does he present a lot of new historical facts about the jew that we don't already know? Or at least put them forth in a particularly damning fashion? Why do you think he's written the greatest book about the kikes ever (and which one is that, since he's written a couple)?

Because every other racialist book is straightforward. This is sly - if it were his intent. So it has the effect of dawning on you that, hey, the catholic idea about jews...you got it all wrong, man. it's not rejecting jebus that made them nuts, they were horrible all along. It's not any different from 2000 Years of European-Termite Interaction: The Chewy Revolutionary Spirit. If the author maintained that despite 2000+ years of eating our homes, the termites could nevertheless be talking-cured into being useful members of our society - would you believe him? Of course not. Well, then why believe him about jews when they are 100x more destructive?

He collects different information than most racialists would. He goes through a lot of history. And he gives the church's perspective and doctrines. It's like he's winking at you, if you know the racial case. And remember, race wasn't precisely science until the last 150 years or so. You (or I at least) start to get the odd feeling that the author himself is aware of the absurdity of his proposition, that jews can be talked out of, well, being jews. When all history screams, no, this is what they are. So it's a left-handed way of making the racialist case, an oblique, indirect, unintentional way - no matter whether the author intends that or not. If he intended it, which is possible, then it's exceptionally sly and slyly effective - dare one say jesuitical. If not...it amounts to the same thing because, to repeat myself, I don't think the average reader will conclude anything but: jews are natural-born rats, pests, and lying, murderous vermin, and that is not ever going to change BECAUSE IT NEVER HAS. I mean, the welfare state was gonna fix nigras. Turn 'em into humans. But decades later...nope. They're still niggras. Well, it's the same with the jews. Except for decades - millennia. Just like the secular liberals, the ideology of Catholicism cuts the feedback loop. Or as Jones would say, it forces reality to conform to its ideology. You will only draw a Catholic conclusion from Jones's work and evidence if you're ideologically committed to (since all other conclusions are immoral). Anyone open to evidence will clearly see what Jones refuses to - yet shows others through massive, overwhelming evidence.

Jews have always been erect rats. All evidence shows that. They have always been hostile to other cultures, at all times. All evidence shows this. It has absolutely nothing to do with religion or time or place - they are still a type of hominid, a race, that is hostile to all others. So the Romans saw it, we have quotations from the best men in all cultures over thousands of years. The problem with jews is racial. They simply aren't compatible with other types. And the cure is exterminating them. The catholic can't face this because he refuses to take off his ideological blinders.

The problem is that Jones's insane and white-genocidal cult has tied up our European culture for the last 2000 years - and unless we break its ideological-moral hold over us, it will be our death knell. It is not killing us directly, it is preventing us from perceiving enemies and their true nature - preventing us, therefore, from defending ourself. Which amounts to the same thing: catholicism is killing our race by preventing us from identifying our own group existence and true value - and accepting the true nature of our enemy, and the true nature of the only solution for dealing with him.

Once you see that, and then you realize that the church as an institution was created and spread primarily through a jew named Saul...then the circle is complete.

Whites must grow up mentally or they will die out as a type. That's what the racial cause represents: whites breaking free of semitic lies, both direct and catholic-hidden, to realize their own value, their own existence, really, the name and nature of their enemies, and the one and only way to deal with them.

Does he present a lot of new historical facts about the jew that we don't already know? Or at least put them forth in a particularly damning fashion? Why do you think he's written the greatest book about the kikes ever (and which one is that, since he's written a couple)?

I haven't listened to all of it but:

Jones writes exceptionally well, like better than pretty much anyone else alive today within any field.

Don't know for Alex, but to me he puts different events and persons in a new light (just look at the index of 'The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and its Impact on World History', it's pretty amazing what he covers). Not always, but more often than not. He's definitely not re-hashing something you've read before, let's say that.

Jones has written the greatest book PROVING THE RACIALIST CASE against kikes.

Why?

Because the case is so strong he proves it EVEN WHEN HE'S TRYING TO DO THE OPPOSITE! (prove the religious case against them)

He proves, quite without intention or even understanding, that jews are a fixed entity - an actual thing. A race, not a religion. NO MATTER WHAT HE INTENDS.

But if he actually did intend to prove the racial case, as I will ask him when I eventually interview him, then he is the cleverest, slyest writer ever on the jews.

As I said, around page 800, it occurred to me he has been pulling our leg all along. He's overtly maintaining his belief jews are a religion that can change, not a biological essence...but all his history shows the opposite. He has to see that. He's a very smart man. Maybe he doesn't even want to admit it to himself, but he has talked and written himself right into our position, no matter what he states formally in public. You cannot get to his conclusion from his evidence.

To me, Jones is a surpassingly odd writer. He is very smooth. Or would be if he edited his works. The writing is excellent. But he, as said, does not anticipate and respond to objections.

Put yourself in his position. You have to prove that jews ARE NOT a racial type, not a kind, not a specific type of animal. Rather, they are men like all others. They need the jebus. And the jebus salvation etc.

I would be sweating like ten niggers if I had to defend Jones's proposition. I'd be like...Jesus christ...wherever you plop down in history -- England in 1100s, or Poland in 900s, or Israel or USA today, or Germany in 1900, or France in 1870, or Russia in 1920, or or or... you find jews doing exactly the same thing. How the fuck am I going to claim they're NOT an actual RACE, or TYPE, or KIND.

It is exactly like claiming that termites just choose to act that way (eat wood, from their perspective; destroying our housing frames, from ours). And that if they embrace the Jeboo, they will totally do a 180.

To which Jones can only respond, termites are animals, not men! True but irrelevant. Look at the successful conversion rate, Jonesy: it's damn near the same. 100% of termites are uncoverted, whereas it's only 99.9999999% of jews.

Jones's case cannot be made successfully. It will only appeal to those who accept it as a religious proposition. The evidence runs entirely against it. To the extent any man of any party writes factually about jewish behavior, he is going to advance the racialist view: jews are a race. Their behavior is predictable, in the same way any other species' behavior is predictable, and for the same reason.

Jones believes not because of evidence but against evidence. He believes out of willful, pride-driven choice. He is a belief-pervert because he refuses to see - because he doesn't want to see. His belief is a character flaw. He could choose to be a white man, but he prefers to make of himself a catholic. That is weak, and it is contemptible.

I knew someone on a jury. The case was a buck nigger who had beaten his sow, seriously wounded her. He already had like nine felony convictions. The person who told me this story dominated the scene and got the nigger more time than he would have if the others had dominated. Who were the others? Christian whites who wanted to give the nigger YET ANOTHER chance. Even though this nigger literally had more than a dozen convictions for crimes.

This is the fuckhead christian mentality. Christianity isn't the source of civilization, it's the opposite of civilization. And this Jones's mentality in microcosm.

JUST IGNORE THAT 2000+ YEARS OF RECORDED BEHAVIOR AND GO WITH WHAT _YOU WANT_ TO BE TRUE (Because Your Jew-Created Cult Told You You Must Believe or Be Immoral).